Judgment :- The petitioner is claimant in L.A.O.P.No.35 of 1995 on the file of the learned Subordiante Judge, Poonamallee, filed petition for execution proceedings in E.P.No.56 of 2006 for recovery of money. He also filed E.A. No.254 of 2006 to raise the security furnished already. The said petition was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this revision petition. 2. Heard Mr. Sivavarthanan learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. P. Santhi Rakkappan learned Government Advocate (Civil Side), appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his arguments only to the interest payable on the solatium fixed by the Court. 30% of the solatium for Rs.7,77,000/- is fixed as 2,33,220. It is well settled that since solatium is integral part of the enhanced compensation, it should also carry interest to the claimants. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the decision rendered by a Division Bench in 2006 2-L.W.102 ( Sub Collector, Padmanabhapuram vs. R.S. Raveendran) wherein after following the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court, it is held as follows: "6. Though prior to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India [2001 (4) CTC 434: 2001 (7) S.C.C. 211 = 2002-2-L.W.39] the Courts have held that interest is not payable for solatium of 30 percent, however, after the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the said decision [Sunder v. Union of India] the claimants are entitled interest on the aggregate amount including solatium. There is no dispute about the law laid down by the Supreme Court. This has been reiterated by us in Tube Investments of India Ltd., v. The Special Tahsildar [ 2004 (4) CTC 359 ]. It is clear that after the above decision of the Supreme Court, interest is payable not only to the actual market value of the land but also for the additional amount as well as solatium. It is true that the learned Subordinate Judge has not granted interest for the solatium of 30 per cent." 4. In view of the settled principles of law, it is ordered that the Solatium amount directed to be paid to the claimant shall carry interest and the Court below is directed to allow the claimant to get the interest on solatium also. 5. With the above said observation the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.